crm_plan_domain_intelligence

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or rate limits. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the tool name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but includes unnecessary routing context. It is concise yet lacks completeness; every sentence does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool plans or what kind of intelligence it produces. Given the sibling tools and the action name, more context is needed for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic meaning but is not detailed. This is adequate but not exceptional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it runs a CRM domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence', but does not explain what that action does. It does not differentiate this from other domain-specific 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools (e.g., coding_plan_domain_intelligence, commerce_plan_domain_intelligence) or other CRM planning tools like crm_agentic_plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only includes routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) which are implementation-oriented, not usage-oriented.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.